resources

Article
An Analysis of Stormwater Management Variants in
Urban Catchments
Mariusz Starzec 1, * , Józef Dziopak and Daniel Słyś
Department of Infrastructure and Water Management, Rzeszow University of Technology, al. Powstańców
Warszawy 6, 35-959 Rzeszow, Poland; jdziopak@prz.edu.pl (J.D.); daniels@prz.edu.pl (D.S.)
* Correspondence: mstarzec1990@prz.edu.pl




Received: 20 January 2020; Accepted: 18 February 2020; Published: 20 February 2020


Abstract: In order to identify the most effective variants for reducing flood risk in cities and to
provide protection for water resources, an in-depth study was carried out. The research results
allowed for the identification of sustainable drainage infrastructure solutions that should be used
to increase the efficiency of traditional drainage systems. The most effective solution turned out to
be the simultaneous use of low impact development facilities and stormwater flow control devices
in drainage systems (Variant IV). Applicationof this variant (maximum discharge QOmax = 246.39
dm3 /s) allowed for the reduction of the peak flow by as much as 86% in relation to those values that
were established in the traditional drainage system (maximum discharge QOmax = 1807.62 dm3 /s).
The use of Variant IV allowed for a combination of the advantages of low impact development (LID)
facilities and stormwater flow control devices in drainage systems while limiting their disadvantages.
In practice, the flow of rainwater from the catchment area to the drainage system was limited, the share
of green areas increased, and the drainage system retention capacity grew. The proposed approach
for reducing the increasing flood risk in cities and providing protection for water resources provides
a structured approach to long-term urban drainage system planning and land use guidelines.

Keywords: stormwater management; retention sewage canal; sustainable drainage systems; urban
floods; management of water resources; climate change

1. Introduction
The development of urban agglomerations has been taking place on an unprecedented scale
in the last decade [1,2]. Currently, approximately 55% of the world’s population lives in urban
areas. It is estimated that this ratio will increase up to 68% by 2050 [3]. An increase of social and
logistical problems and the deterioration of the natural environment are negative consequences of
urbanization [4–6]. In order to ensure the maintenance of the living standards that are expected
by residents, who are increasing in number, it is necessary to properly maintain, operate [7,8],
and modernize a city’s infrastructure [9,10] and to implement such in accordance with the principles of
sustainable development [11,12]. In many cases, urban development is constrained by the possibilities
of municipal infrastructure, especially the one used to drain wastewater and stormwater [13,14].
Urbanization increases the sealing of existing drainage basins, which causes, among other
effects, changes in the dynamics and size of surface runoff and a decreased intensity of groundwater
supply [15,16]. Currently, the uncontrolled and reckless replacement of biologically active areas with
impervious surfaces has been observed [17,18]. In catchments that are characterized by a significant
percentage of green areas, the transformation of rainfall into surface and underground runoff occurs
much more slowly and in a sustainable way [19,20]. The prevailing volume of precipitation in these
areas is subject to infiltration, evaporation, and surface retention [21]. Only a small part of the volume
of rainfall transforms into surface runoff [22,23]. Unfortunately, as the degree of sealing of the drainage

Resources 2020, 9, 19; doi:10.3390/resources9020019 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources

Resources 2020, 9, 19 2 of 17

basin increases, the proportion between these processes changes. In catchments with a high degree of
sealing, the infiltration of rainwater into the ground disappears in favor of a surface runoff, which in
cities goes almost entirely to the drainage systems [24–26].
Local urban floods are an increasingly observed phenomena, typical in highly urbanized areas.
They result from the occurrence of heavy rainfall, the intensity of which exceeds the possibilities of their
hydraulic transport by municipal drainage systems [27,28]. Other times, dry periods occur in the same
areas when water scarcity is observed [29,30]. The occurrence of drought within urban agglomerations
has a negative impact on society, the economy, and the natural environment. The growing population
of a city also necessitates a greater amount of the total water that is needed for adequate municipal
supply [31]. Reducing the risk of natural disasters (e.g., floods and drought) requires the effective
management of water resources [32] and advanced seasonal forecasting [33]. Proper water management
in urban areas allows for the transformation of rainwater, which is treated as a problem, into an
alternative source of water [17,34]. Though these types of floods usually cover a part of the drainage
basin, their occurrence causes significant financial and social losses [35,36]. Outflows of stormwater
from drainage systems to the surface of area usually occur in close proximity to drainage conduits,
which have an insufficient hydraulic capacity. There are also cases where the flooding appears at
a considerable distance from the overloaded conduit, and this is due to the specific shape of the
catchment surface [14].
It is also worth emphasizing that there are often situations in which conduits are not completely
used in terms of hydraulics and have significant unused capacity above the rainwater table that can be
included in the retention volume of the drainage system [37]. This fact is of colossal significance in the
aspect of slowing down rainwater runoff to receivers and limiting their negative impact, but it is also
very important for economic reasons [38,39].
Urban floods have become a major problem for most urban agglomerations around the world.
At present, it is believed that the best way to deal with excess rainwater in such areas is to use objects
and devices that allow for the reconstruction of the natural water cycle that occurred in areas before
their urbanization [40–42]. These facilities include rain gardens, permeable pavement, rainwater
catchment, vegetated (green) roofs, and soil amendments for better absorption. Green infrastructure
that mimics natural hydrological processes is able to provide economic, environmental, and social
benefits [43,44]. According to research [45–50], for stormwater management practices in urban areas,
the main purpose of most types of low impact development (LID) devices is a reduction of the peak
discharge of stormwater. For instance, the installation of wales and rain-gardens can improve the
greening of cities and increase the overall area of urban greenery. This can in turn improve the diversity
of urban ecosystems by providing new habitats for a wider range of organisms (e.g., birds, amphibians,
and insects) [51–55]. In addition, the use of LID facilities can improve water quality [56–59] and reduce
air pollution [60–65]. The careful planning of such infrastructures can also bring many benefits to the
general public as a result of creating more recreational space (e.g., urban parks) and improving the
utility value of a district or urban areas [17,66].
There are certain situations in which low impact development practices are not recommended
or impossible to apply in practice. While the infiltration of rainwater into the ground is usually
desirable, diverting water to some locations can create problems, e.g., destabilizing slopes and cliffs [67].
The use of green infrastructure facilities in the process of creating the concept of sustainable drainage
systems requires a compliance with appropriate local and soil-water conditions. The use of infiltration
facilities is justified only in areas with an appropriate filtration coefficient kf and low groundwater
levels [42]. The use of low impact development devices enables the solving of the problem of excess
rainwater in the local range [68]. In order to ensure sustainable rainwater management in an urban
agglomeration, these techniques should be applied throughout the whole catchment area [36]. An LID
infrastructure system requires significant space to be reserved for its construction. For example, the use
of bio-swales on roads should be allocated an additional space between pedestrians, cycle lanes and
Resources 2020, 9, 19 3 of 17

roads, and housing estates should be provided with sufficiently large areas for the construction of
tanks or draining devices [67].
In urban catchments that are subject to strong expansion it is very difficult or sometimes impossible
Resources 2020, X, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18
to obtain free land for building water and stormwater management facilities. In such cases, underground
drainage disposal
In urban systems
catchments arethat
used,arewhich,
subjectwhen taking
to strong the solution
expansion of innovative
it is very difficult orretention
sometimes canals
proposed by thetoauthors
impossible of land
obtain free the publication into account,
for building water are characterized
and stormwater managementby a betterInenvironmental
facilities. such cases,
impact and much better economic parameters that are associated
underground drainage disposal systems are used, which, when taking the solution with the more effective use of the
of innovative
retention capacity
retention canals ofproposed
the drainage
by thesystems.
authors of the publication into account, are characterized by a better
environmental
The impactvarious
article analyzes and much better of
variants economic
drainage parameters that are associated
and management of rainwaterwithfrom
the more
the city’s
effective
catchment use
area of the
with retentionemphasis
particular capacity ofonthe drainage
the systems.
proprietary solution of innovative retention canals and
low impact The article analyzes
development variousAs
facilities. variants of the
part of drainage and four
research, management
stormwaterof rainwater from the
management city's had
options
catchment area with particular emphasis on the proprietary solution of innovative retention canals
their peak discharges determined and their advantages and disadvantages identified. The presented
and low impact development facilities. As part of the research, four stormwater management options
results indicate that the simultaneous use of piling partitions and LID devices allows for the achievement
had their peak discharges determined and their advantages and disadvantages identified. The
of thepresented
highest economic, environmental
results indicate and social benefits
that the simultaneous in comparison
use of piling to the
partitions and LIDcurrently used variants
devices allows for
of stormwater
the achievement of the highest economic, environmental and social benefits in comparison topractices,
management, i.e., the traditional drainage system, low impact development the
and retention
currently sewage canals.
used variants of stormwater management, i.e., the traditional drainage system, low impact
development practices, and retention sewage canals.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Study
2.1. Case Study
The research was carried out for a real catchment area constituting a fragment of the city of
Thewhich
Tarnobrzeg, research was carried
is located out for a realPoland
in south-eastern catchment area constituting
(Figure 1). a fragment of the city of
Tarnobrzeg, which is located in south-eastern Poland (Figure 1).

.
Figure 1. Scheme
Figure of the
1. Scheme drainage
of the basin
drainage basin(K—drainage systemoutlet
(K—drainage system outletnode;
node; dk —conduit
dk—conduit diameter).
diameter).
Resources 2020, 9, 19 4 of 17

Resources 2020, X, x FOR

The parameters PEER REVIEWthe
characterizing catchment are presented in Table 1. 4 of 18

The parameters Table

characterizing the
1. Land-use catchment are
characteristics presented
of the in Table 1.
urban catchment.

Area catchment.
Table 1. Land-use characteristics of the urban
Land Use
(ha) (%)
Area
Land Use
Rooftop 4.78 10.30
Road, pavement and other impervious 9.60 (ha)
(%) 20.70
Rooftop
Green area 32.00 4.78
69.00 10.30
Road, pavement and
Total areas other impervious
46.38 9.60
100.00 20.70
Green area 32.00 69.00
Total areas 46.38 100.00
The parameters characterizing the traditional drainage system are presented in Table 2.
The parameters characterizing the traditional drainage system are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Hydraulic parameters of traditional drainage system.
Table 2. Hydraulic parameters of traditional drainage system.
Value
Parameter Value
Parameter Minimum Maximum
Length of links
Minimum
19.36 m
Maximum
97.40 m
Length of
Total length of links
links 19.36 m
3769.70 m
97.40 m
Total
Slope length of links 1.1 %
of links 3769.70 3.1m
%
Diameter of links
Slope of links 0.3 m 1.1 ‰ 1.03.1
m ‰
Drainage Diameter
system capacity 1515.76 3
of links 0.3 m m 1.0 m
Drainage system capacity 1515.76 m3
The precipitation model of Bogdanowicz and Stachy (recommended in Poland) was used to
calculateThe
the precipitation model
unit precipitation of Bogdanowicz
intensity [69]. Thisand modelStachy (recommended
determines in Poland)
the correlations was used
between the to
calculate
intensity the unit precipitation
of precipitation intensity
and its duration, [70].
using This model
Equation (1): determines the correlations between the
intensity of precipitation and its duration, using Equation (1):
hmax = 1.42 · td 0.330.33+ α(td ) · (−lnp)0.584
0.584
(1)
hmax = 1.42 ∙ td + α(td) ∙ (−lnp) (1)
where hmaxhmax
where is the maximum
is the maximum total amount
total amountof precipitation
of precipitationwith a duration
with a duration td and a probability
td and of of
a probability
occurrence p (mm),
occurrence α is aαparameter
p (mm), is a parameter (scale) that isthat
(scale) adopted depending
is adopted on theon
depending region of Poland
the region and theand
of Poland
duration of precipitation
the duration td , p is the
of precipitation td, pprobability of rainfall:
is the probability p ∈ (0; 1],
of rainfall: p ∈and R isand
(0; 1], a region
R is a of Poland.
region of Poland.
All simulations
All simulationswerewere
carried out while
carried assuming
out while a probability
assuming of rainfall
a probability of rainfall = 0.5.
as p as Precipitation
p = 0.5. Precipitation
intensity waswas
intensity estimated
estimatedaccording
according to the Bogdanowicz
to the Bogdanowicz andandStache
Stacheformula
formulaconcerning
concerningblock
block
precipitation with
precipitation witha auniform
uniformintensity throughout their
intensity throughout theirduration.
duration. FigureFigure 2 shows
2 shows the IDFthe IDF
(Intensity-
(Intensity-Duration-Frequency)
Duration-Frequency) curve that curve wasthat was determined
determined on the on theof
basis basis of Equation
Equation (1). (1).

.
Figure 2. IDF curve determined based on the Bogdanowicz and Stache model at p = 0.5

Figure 2. IDF curve determined based on the Bogdanowicz and Stache model at p = 0.5
Resources 2020, 9, 19 5 of 17
Resources 2020, X, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18

2.2. Storm Water Management Model (SWMM)

2.2. Storm Water Management Model (SWMM)
A simulation of hydrological and hydraulic phenomena occurring in the “precipitation-drainage
A simulation of hydrological and hydraulic phenomena occurring in the “precipitation-drainage
and basin-drainage system-receiver” system was carried out by using the Storm Water Management
and basin-drainage system-receiver” system was carried out by using the Storm Water Management
Model (SWMM) version 5.1 program. Hydrodynamic models of the drainage system made in the
Model (SWMM) version 5.1 program. Hydrodynamic models of the drainage system made in the
SWMM program allowed for the determination of the values of the hydraulic parameters describing the
SWMM program allowed for the determination of the values of the hydraulic parameters describing
operation of the drainage system in variable conditions of its function (static and dynamic), including
the operation of the drainage system in variable conditions of its function (static and dynamic),
flow rate and liquid stream velocity, hydrostatic pressure, and rainwater filling height in the drainage
including flow rate and liquid stream velocity, hydrostatic pressure, and rainwater filling height in
system canal. A diagram illustrating the transformation of precipitation into surface runoff in the
the drainage system canal. A diagram illustrating the transformation of precipitation into surface
SWMM program is presented in Figure 3.
runoff in the SWMM program is presented in Figure 3.

.
Figure 3. Conceptual view of surface runoff in the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) 5.1
(hw —depth of water over the subcatchment; hgw —depth of depression storage) [70].
Figure 3. Conceptual view of surface runoff in the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) 5.1
(hw—depth ofwas
Each subcatchment water over the
treated as subcatchment; hgw—depthTherefore,
a non-linear reservoir. of depression
thestorage)
reliable[71].
outflow from the
subcatchment was determined on the basis of the relationship presented by Equation (2) [70]:
Each subcatchment was treated as a non-linear reservoir. Therefore, the reliable outflow from
3
the subcatchment was determined on the (hbasis of the relationship presented by Equation (2) [71]:
w − h gw ) 5 12
Qp = ps iz 3 5 (2)
(nhzw  hgw ) 12
Q p  ps iz (2)
where Qp is the surface runoff intensity of rainwater, ps nisz the runoff width of the drained drainage
basin, hwhere
w is theQdepthp is theofsurface
the water overintensity
runoff the subcatchment,
of rainwater, hgw is ps the depth
is the of depression
runoff width of thestorage,
drainednz is
drainage
the Manning
basin, coefficient for the
hw is the depth of drainage
the waterbasin, iz is the slope of
andsubcatchment,
over the hgwdrainage basin.
is the depth of depression storage, nz is
Thetheinstantaneous intensityfor
Manning coefficient of the
rainwater
drainage outflow
basin,from
and ithez is catchment
the slope ofcorresponds to the volume
drainage basin.
of water stored on its surface,intensity
The instantaneous with less of losses
rainwaterresulting
outflow from
fromwater infiltration
the catchment into the ground,
corresponds to the volume
evaporation,
of water andstored
surface onretention
its surface,height.
withThe lessvalue
lossesofresulting
the instantaneous
from water rainwater flowinto
infiltration ratethe
in aground,
drainage system conduits in the SWMM 5.1 program is determined based on
evaporation, and surface retention height. The value of the instantaneous rainwater flow rate in a the system of differential
Equation (3), which
drainage results
system from the
conduits inprinciples
the SWMM of mass conservation
5.1 program (continuity based
is determined Equationon (3))
the and
system of
momentum (momentum Equation (4)), as developed by de Saint-Venant in Equation
differential Equation (3), which results from the principles of mass conservation (continuity Equation (3) [70]:
(3)) and momentum (momentum Equation (4)), as developed by de Saint-Venant in Equation (3) [71]:
∂A ∂Q
Continuity : + =0 (3)
A Q ∂t ∂x
 0 Continuity (3)
∂Q t∂(Q2/A x ) ∂H
Momentum :2 + + gA + gAS f + gAhL = 0 (4)
Q (Q /∂t A) ∂x
H ∂x
  gA  gAS f  gAhL  0 Momentum (4)
where x is the distance along t the conduit,
x x A is the cross-sectional area, Q is the flow rate, H is
t is time,
the hydraulic head of water in the conduit (elevation head plus any possible pressure head), Sf is the
friction where
slope (headx is the distance
loss per unitalong thehconduit,
length), t is time, A is the cross-sectional area, Q is the flow rate, H
L is the local energy loss per unit length of the conduit, and g
is the hydraulic
is the acceleration of gravity. head of water in the conduit (elevation head plus any possible pressure head), Sf is
the friction slope (head loss per
The SWMM program user has the opportunities to unit length), h L is the local energy loss per unit length of the conduit,
choose one of three derived models resulting
and g is the acceleration of gravity.
from the adoption of certain simplifications in the de Saint-Venant equation. All simulations were
performed by The SWMM aprogram
assuming dynamicuser wave hasmodel.
the opportunities to choose one of three derived models resulting
The LID control module allows for the simulationinofthe
from the adoption of certain simplifications thede Saint-Venant
operation equation.
of various types All simulations
of low impact were
performed
development by assuming
infrastructure. Thea dynamic
user canwave model model.
eight different types of LID control devices, i.e.,
The LID control module allows for the simulation of the operation of various types of low impact
development infrastructure. The user can model eight different types of LID control devices, i.e., bio-
Resources 2020, X, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18
Resources 2020, 9, 19 6 of 17
Resources 2020, X, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18
retention cells, rain gardens, green roofs, infiltration trenches, continuous permeable pavement, rain
retention cells,cells,
barrels, rooftop
bio-retention rain gardens,
disconnection,
rain green
gardens, and roofs, infiltration
vegetative
green roofs, swalestrenches,
[71].
infiltration continuous
trenches, permeable
continuous pavement,
permeable rain
pavement,
barrels,
rain rooftop
barrels, disconnection,
rooftop and and
disconnection, vegetative swales
vegetative [71].[70].
swales
2.3. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (RETENTION SEWAGE CANAL)
2.3.
2.3. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (RETENTION SEWAGE SEWAGE CANAL)
CANAL)
The improvement of the hydraulic efficiency of traditional drainage systems has been achieved
The
The improvement
improvement
by introducing of
ofthe
thehydraulic
piling partitionshydraulic efficiency
efficiency
to manholes ofof
(Figuretraditional
traditional
4). drainage systems
drainage hashas
systems been achieved
been by
achieved
introducing
by introducing piling partitions
piling to manholes
partitions to manholes(Figure 4). 4).
(Figure

Figure 4. Diagram of the implementation and location of the piling partitions in a manhole (a) cross
Figure 4. Diagram of the implementation and location of the piling partitions in a manhole (a) cross
Figure
section 4.
andDiagram of the implementation
(b) longitudinal and location ofchamber;
section. 1—manhole/sewer the piling partitions in overflow;
2—emergency a manhole3—piling
(a) cross
section and (b) longitudinal section. 1—manhole/sewer chamber; 2—emergency overflow; 3—piling
section and
partition; (b) longitudinal
4—outflow orifice;section.
5—conduit; 1—manhole/sewer
H zał—maximum chamber; 2—emergency
allowable stormwater overflow;
fill before 3—piling
the piling
partition; 4—outflow orifice; 5—conduit; Hzał —maximum allowable stormwater fill before the piling
partition; h4—outflow orifice; 5—conduit;
RK,t—instantaneous stormwater Hfill
zał—maximum
height in theallowable
drainage stormwater
system fill before
conduit the with
equipped pilinga
partition; hRK,t —instantaneous stormwater fill height in the drainage system conduit equipped with a
partition; hsystem
RK,t—instantaneous
retention system during the
thetimestormwater
time fill height in
thethe drainage system conduit equipped with a
retention during t;t;ddk —diameter
k—diameter ofthe
of conduit;
conduit; and
and DD O,RK—diameter/height of the
O,RK —diameter/height of the
retention system[14,72].
outflow orifice)
orifice) during the time t; dk—diameter of the conduit; and DO,RK—diameter/height of the
outflow [14,71].
outflow orifice) [14,72].
The piling
The pilingpartition
partitionhad
had
anan outflow
outflow orifice
orifice (4) in(4)
theinlower
the lower part,
part, and theand theedge
upper upper edge
of the of the
partition
The
partition piling
was a partition
typical had
front an outflow
overflow (2). orifice
The (4)
circular in the
outflowlower
orificepart,
(4) and
was the upper
mapped
was a typical front overflow (2). The circular outflow orifice (4) was mapped in the SWMM program in edge
the of
SWMM the
partition
program
by was
using by a typical
theusing front
theLink
Orifice overflow
Orifice (2).
Link function.
function. The circular
The emergency
The emergency outflow
overflow orifice
overflow (4)
(2) was(2) was mapped
was designed
designed in
by using the SWMM
by using the
the Weir
program
Weir Linkby using
function.
Link function. the Orifice Link function. The emergency overflow (2) was designed by using the
WeirThe
Link
The function.of
principle
principle of operation
operation ofof the
the retention
retention sewage
sewage network
network is
is shown
shown ininFigure
Figure5.5.
The principle of operation of the retention sewage network is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Scheme of the retention sewage canal with piling partitions that create stormwater canal
Figure 5. Scheme of the retention sewage canal with piling partitions that create stormwater canal
retention spaces (blue-average distribution of the liquid stream mirror in the conduits of a traditional
Figure 5. spaces
retention Scheme of the retention sewage canal the with
liquidpiling partitionsinthat
the create stormwater canal
drainage systems(blue-average distribution
and the blue-liquid stream of
distribution stream
and mirrorcapacity
retention conduits of a traditional
of the drainage system
retention
drainage spaces
systems (blue-average
and the distribution
blue-liquid of the
stream liquid stream
distribution andmirror in thecapacity
retention conduitsofofthe
a traditional
drainage
after equipping it with piling partition; VS,SK —the volume of stormwater retained in the drainage
drainage
system ∆V systems
after and the
equipping blue-liquid
it with piling stream distribution
partition; VS,SK—the and retention
volume capacity of
of stormwater the drainage
retained in the
system; RK —the additional volume of stormwater retained in the conduits between the drainage
system
drainage after equipping
system; ΔV it with
—the piling partition;
additional volume ofVstormwater
S,SK—the volume of stormwater
retained retained in the
system operating in aRKtraditional way and an identical drainage systemin the conduits
equipped with between
a system of
drainage system;
system ΔVRK—theinadditional
operating a volume
traditional way of stormwater
and an retained
identical in the
drainage conduits
system between
equipped thea
with
retention sewage canal; and LKR —distance between adjacent piling partitions) [72].
drainage
system ofsystem operating
retention in a traditional
sewage canal; way andbetween
and LKR—distance an identical drainage
adjacent pilingsystem equipped
partitions) [72]. with a
system of retention sewage canal; and LKR—distance between adjacent piling partitions) [72].
 Resources 2020, X, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18
Piling partitions form a serial hydraulic system of retention chambers on a drainage system and
Resources 2020, 9, 19 7 of 17
make it possible to effectively use the capacity of the drainage system [73]. The application of the
aforementioned solution provides measurable effects and has a number of application advantages,
in particular,
Piling it allows
partitions form for the significant
a serial hydraulic reduction
system of of peak-flow
retention values at
chambers onsubsequent
a drainage stages
systemofand
make hydraulic transport
it possible
Resources 2020, X, xto of stormwater,
effectively
FOR PEER REVIEW which has already been confirmed many times as
use the capacity of the drainage system [73]. The applicationpart of 7many
ofof
18 the
investments in Poland [74].
Piling partitions form a serial hydraulic system of retention chambers on a drainage system and
aforementioned solution provides measurable effects and has a number of application advantages,
make it possible
in particular, it allowstofor
effectively use the
the significant capacity of
reduction ofpeak-flow
the drainage system
values [73]. The application
at subsequent of the
stages of hydraulic
3. Results
aforementioned solution provides measurable effects and has a number of application advantages,
transport of stormwater, which has already been confirmed many times as part of many investments
in particular, it allows for the significant reduction of peak-flow values at subsequent stages of
in PolandFour
[71].variants of drainage systems were adopted in the research.
hydraulic transport
Variant I—urbanof stormwater,
drainage with which has already
rainwater been by
drainage confirmed many times
a traditional as part ofgravity
underground many
investments
drainage
3. Results in
system Poland
(Figure[74].
6).
Variant II—rainwater management based on the interaction of a traditional drainage system
3.Four variants
Results
with low impactof drainage systems
development facilitieswere adopted
(Figure in the
7). It was research.
assumed in the research that rainwater from
Variant
the roofs I—urban
of drainage
buildings would with
be rainwater
drained to drainage
rain gardens, by a traditional
which were underground
located gravity
on individual drainage
properties.
Four variants of drainage systems were adopted in the research.
system (Figure
The rain
Variant 6).
garden parameters
I—urban are shown
drainage with in Table 3. drainage by a traditional underground gravity
rainwater
drainage system (Figure 6).
Variant II—rainwater management based on the interaction of a traditional drainage system
with low impact development facilities (Figure 7). It was assumed in the research that rainwater from
the roofs of buildings would be drained to rain gardens, which were located on individual properties.
The rain garden parameters are shown in Table 3.

Figure
Figure6.6.The
Theprinciple of rainwater
principle management
of rainwater in Variant
management I (traditional
in Variant drainage
I (traditional systems).
drainage systems).

Variant II—rainwater management based on the interaction of a traditional drainage system with
low impact development facilities (Figure 7). It was assumed in the research that rainwater from the
roofs of buildings would be drained to rain gardens, which were located on individual properties.
The rainFigure
garden parameters
6. The are
principle of shownmanagement
rainwater in Table 3. in Variant I (traditional drainage systems).

Figure 7. The principle of rainwater management in Variant II (traditional drainage systems and low
impact development (LID) facilities).

Figure
Figure 7. The
7. The principle
principle ofofrainwater
rainwatermanagement
management in
in Variant
VariantIIII(traditional
(traditionaldrainage
drainagesystems andand
systems lowlow
impact
impact development
development (LID)
(LID) facilities).
facilities).

Variant III—urban drainage with rainwater drainage by a sustainable drainage system (a traditional
drainage system equipped with piling partitions) (Figure 8), in accordance with a patent solution [50].
The average distance between the piling partitions of the retention sewage canals was approximately
equal 75 m. The ratio parameter Hzał /dk was equal to 0.99.
Resources 2020, 9, 19 8 of 17
Resources 2020, X, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

Table 3. Properties
Variant IV—rainwater management in theofcatchment
layers of rain area
gardens.
based on the use of a traditional
drainage system equipped with bothLayers
low impact development devices Value and piling partitions (Figure 9).
Surface layer
Table 3. Properties
Berm height of layers of rain 80
gardens.
mm
Vegetation volume fraction 0.1 (volume fraction)
Layers Value
Surface roughness (Manning n) 0.052 m −1/3s
Surface
Surface layer
slope 1.0%
Soil
Berm layer
height 80 mm
VegetationThickness
volume fraction 0.1 (volume
900 mmfraction)
Surface roughness (Manning n) −1/3 s
0.052 mfraction)
Porosity 0.33 (volume
Surface slope
Field capacity 1.0%
0.24 (volume fraction)
Wilting
Soil layerpoint 0.15 (volume fraction)
Conductivity 10 mm/h
Thickness 900 mm
Conductivity slope 1
Porosity 0.33 (volume fraction)
Suction head
Field capacity 5 mm/h
0.24 (volume fraction)
Wilting point 0.15 (volume fraction)
Variant III—urban drainage with rainwater drainage by 10
Conductivity a mm/h
sustainable drainage system (a
traditional drainage system equipped with
Conductivity piling partitions) (Figure18), in accordance with a patent
slope
solution [50]. The average distance between
Suction head the piling partitions 5ofmm/h
the retention sewage canals was
approximately equal 75 m. The ratio parameter Hzał/dk was equal to 0.99.

Figure
Figure 8. principle
8. The The principle of rainwater
of rainwater management
management in Variant
in Variant III (traditional
III (traditional drainage
drainage systemsand
systems andpiling
piling
Resources partitions).
2020,
partitions). X, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

Variant IV—rainwater management in the catchment area based on the use of a traditional
drainage system equipped with both low impact development devices and piling partitions (Figure
9).

Figure
Figure 9. The
9. The principle
principle of of rainwatermanagement
rainwater management in
in Variant
VariantIVIV(traditional drainage
(traditional systems,
drainage pilingpiling
systems,
partitions, and LID facilities).
partitions, and LID facilities).

The simulation tests of four variants of the drainage system showed significant differences in
the size and dynamics of rainwater outflows. First of all, there were significant differences in the
variability of QO stormwater runoff from this system, as shown in Figure 10.
 Figure
Resources 2020, 9. The principle of rainwater management in Variant IV (traditional drainage systems, piling 9 of 17
9, 19
partitions, and LID facilities).

TheThe simulation
simulation tests
tests of four
of four variants
variants of the
of the drainage
drainage system
system showed
showed significant
significant differences
differences in in
the
sizethe
andsize and dynamics
dynamics of rainwater
of rainwater outflows.outflows. First
First of all, of all,
there were there were significant
significant differences
differences in the
in the variability
variability
of QO of QO
stormwater stormwater
runoff runoff
from this from as
system, this system,
shown in as shown
Figure 10.in Figure 10.

Resources 2020, X, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Figure Hydrographs
10. 10.
Figure Hydrographs of of
stormwater
stormwaterrunoff
runofffrom
fromthe thegravitational
gravitational drainage systemsatatthe
drainage systems theoutlet
outlet
node K depending
node K depending onon
thethe
examined
examined variants
variantsofofitsitsfunction
functionand
andthethe duration
duration of (a)ttd d==
precipitation(a)
of precipitation
10 min,
10 min, td =td30
(b) (b) min,
= 30 and
min, and(c)(c)tdtd==50
50min.
min.

For example, by analyzing the data that were obtained during rainfall with a duration of td = 10
min (Figure 10a), it could be seen that the peak flow rate QOmax decreased from the value of 1763.17
dm3/s in Variant I to just 200.26 dm3/s with the system in operation Variant IV. At the same time, the
stormwater retention time in the drainage system in Variant IV, about 110 minutes, was almost three
times longer compared to the value of this parameter that was determined for Variant I, which had a
Resources 2020, 9, 19 10 of 17

For example, by analyzing the data that were obtained during rainfall with a duration of td =
10 min (Figure 10a), it could be seen that the peak flow rate QOmax decreased from the value of 1763.17
dm3 /s in Variant I to just 200.26 dm3 /s with the system in operation Variant IV. At the same time,
the stormwater retention time in the drainage system in Variant IV, about 110 minutes, was almost three
times longer compared to the value of this parameter that was determined for Variant I, which had a
value of almost 40 minutes.
Conducting tests in a sufficiently wide range of precipitation times td (precipitation with a duration
of 10 to 160 min) allowed for the establishment the relationship between the peak outflow rates QOmax
from the drainage system in relation to the duration of precipitation td. The results of the tests are
presented in graphic form in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Hydrographs of rainwater runoff from the gravitational stormwater drainage systems at
the outlet node K depending on the examined variants of its function and the duration of rain (a) td =
10 min, (b) td = 30 min, and (c) td = 50 min).

It turned out that the most unfavorable hydrograph of the rainwater outflow from the analyzed
catchment occurred in the case of Variant I, i.e., the traditional drainage system. Regardless of the
considered duration of rainfall td , the adoption of Variant I resulted in the highest values of peak
outflow from the examined catchment. At the same time, it could be seen that the time of stormwater
detention in the drainage system and the outflow to the receiver was the shortest for all rainfall times td .
Variant IV had the greatest ability to extend the time of outflow from the catchment area and to
reduce the volume of flows, consisting of the simultaneous use of an innovative retention drainage
system and low impact development devices. The best results were noted both in terms of the volume
of the rainwater flowing into the drainage system from the drained drainage basin and the reduction
in the size of the outflows from the drainage basin to the receiver.
A comparison of the set peak outflow rates from the tested drainage systems proved that the
adopted stormwater management variant had a very significant impact on the hydraulic load of the
rainwater receiver. The highest values of the peak flow rate of the stormwater QOmax were observed
in Variant I, regardless of the considered duration of rainfall td. Intermediate test results were obtained
in the case of analysis of Variants II and III. It turns out that in Variant III during short rainfall, i.e.,
with td < 40 minutes, the use of piling partitions allowed for the obtainment of much more favorable
hydraulic conditions at the outflow from the drainage basin under test conditions compared to the
use of low impact development facilities (Variant II). In the event of rainfall with a duration of td >
40 minutes, the use of LID objects was found to be more preferable.
Resources 2020, 9, 19 11 of 17

The research showed that Variant IV guaranteed the highest safety of the hydraulic function
of the drainage system under test conditions. By analyzing the results of simulation tests on a real
urban catchment, it was found that the use of Variant IV reduced the peak rainfall outflow intensity
from 1807.62 to just 246.39 dm3 /s. Importantly, the use of Variant IV in practice, based on sustainable
drainage system supported by LID devices, allowed for the obtainment of a practically constant value
of the peak outflow from the drained drainage basin, regardless of the duration of precipitation td
(Figure 11). At the same time, the QO stormwater outflow rates (Figure 10) maintained values that
were close to the peak value, practically throughout the entire period of the hydraulic function of the
drainage system. This is an important observation, primarily for practical reasons, because it allows
for a significant reduction in investment and operating costs of existing drainage facilities and their
equipment that are located downstream drainage systems, i.e., after the outlet node K.
The confirmed relationship is particularly important in the case of the temporary storage of
stormwater runoff in underground vaults, pounds, or depressed area to allow for metered discharges
that reduce peak flow rates, as well as the storage of stormwater runoff in site. Obtaining a favorable
hydrograph of inflow to these objects (smaller and stable value of the inflow intensity) makes it possible
to reduce their required volume.
The use of the retention capacity of the drainage system (retention sewage canal) and limiting the
inflow of rainwater (low impact development) to this system has allowed for the reduction of the peak
outflow from this system. It turns out that the largest reduction in the peak flow of stormwater, by as
much as 86% compared to Variant I, was ensured by the use of Variant IV. An indirect reduction of the
peak flow of 60% was found when Variant II taking into account. On the other hand, the use of LID
devices in Variant III reduced the peak flow by 31%.

4. Discussion
Xia et al. [74] described the concept of using green infrastructure as a breakthrough in the planning
of urban areas. This approach to flood risk management in cities is desirable because it provides
recreational space, habitats for various organisms, and mitigates other adverse urbanization effects
such as the heat island effect. The results of the tests confirmed the correctness of this thesis. However,
in order to increase the effectiveness of practices to reduce the risk of urban floods, it is necessary to
take into account the interaction of the green LID infrastructure with facilities to increase the retention
efficiency of drainage systems (retention sewage canal).
A review of the literature in the discussed topic and analyses of the results of the simulation
tests allowed for the determination of the basic advantages and disadvantages of the four flood risk
management options in urban areas and indicated the fields of their practical application; these are
listed in Table 4.
The conducted research confirmed that the use of traditional sewage systems (Variant I) is an
inefficient way of dealing with excess rainwater in urban areas. The acceptance of this outdated
approach leads to the frequent occurrence of urban floods, causing significant social and financial losses.
In the case of a concept based on green infrastructure (Variant II), the correctness of its application in
urban agglomeration was confirmed. It should be noted, however, that, in addition to the indisputable
advantages, the system based on LID devices also has disadvantages that sometimes limit the area
of their practical applications. In turn, the use of the concept based on the use of only the retention
capabilities of drainage systems gives very good results in terms of its hydraulic efficiency. It is highly
purposeful to include such a solution in design concepts. It allows one to simultaneously control
and reduce the peak values of stormwater flows. Unfortunately, in Variant III, the entire volume of
rainwater that drains from the drained drainage basin to the rainwater drainage system is discharged
to the receiver, which is a significant drawback.
Resources 2020, 9, 19 12 of 17

Table 4. Advantages and disadvantages of analyzed variants of rainwater management in urban areas.

Variant Advantages Disadvantages

-Lack of utilization of retention capabilities of active channels in these systems.
-Minimal demand for built-up space, especially on the land surface. -Adverse hydrograph of rainwater runoff from the system (cumulative peak rainfall
-High resistance to adverse soil and water conditions. discharges to the receiver).
I -No requirements regarding the quality of transported stormwater. -The entire volume of rainwater transported by the system is discharged outside the
-Can be used in areas with different buildings drainage basin.
-Possibility of using trenchless methods during the investment. -Deterioration of the receiver’s water quality by introducing impurities contained
in rainwater.
-Ability to temporarily rainwater retention.
Possibility of interoperability of LID devices with other drainage infrastructure.
-Frequent necessity of pre-treatment of rainwater before it is fed to soil infiltration
-Limiting the volume of stormwater discharged outside the drainage basin.
devices.
-Improvement of soil and water conditions in the catchment area.
-The need for periodic maintenance of LID devices.
-Imitation of natural hydrological processes before urbanization.
-Dependence on soil and water conditions
II -Rainwater pretreatment.
-Dependence on area availability.
-Possibility of rainwater supply by existing traditional sewage systems.
-A significant share of the required area of LID facilities in relation to the drained
-Possibility of cooperation of various LID objects within the drained drainage basin.
drainage basin.
-Improving the diversity of urban ecosystems, including providing new habitats for a
-Often possible high investments.
wider range of organisms.
-Recreation space and improvement of the utility value of a district or urban areas.
-The entire volume of rainwater transported by the system is discharged outside the
-All benefits of Variant I. drainage basin.
-Using the retention possibilities of existing drainage systems. -Reduction of the load per unit load of the receiver’s water pollution.
III -A favorable hydrograph of rainwater outflow from the system (low and constant -Deterioration of the receiver’s water quality by introducing impurities contained
rainfall outflow intensity). in rainwater.
- The possibility of applying various LID objects to the drainage system. -Dependence of the retention capacity of the drainage system on the average bottom
of its ducts, equipped with retention canals.
- Benefits of Variants II and III.
- The maximum possible reduction of the peak outflow from the drained -Frequent necessity of pre-treatment of rainwater supplied to devices before
drainage basin. infiltration into the ground.
IV - The possibility of limiting the use of LID facilities in places where their operation is -Periodic maintenance of LID devices is required.
expensive and/or difficult to implement. -Dependence on soil and water conditions for LID facilities.
- Limitation of the required geometry of drainage system, especially in areas with -Dependence on the availability of land for the construction of LID facilities.
permeable soils.
Resources 2020, 9, 19 13 of 17

Thus, the most desirable approach to the problem of excess rainwater is the implementation of
Variant IV. It combines the advantages of Variant II and Variant III while limiting their disadvantages.
In addition, the special advantage of the presented Variant IV is the easy transition from Variant II or
III to Variant IV.
Municipal authorities have sometimes expressed the view that the main reason for frequent urban
floods and drought is climate change, not the lack of a consistent balanced approach to storm water
management. For instance, in more than 90% of Chinese cities, flood risk management is based on
the use of traditional engineering infrastructure [17] in the form of a traditional covered storm water
drainage systems, which are designed to discharge urban discharges to the receiver as soon as possible.
Additionally in Poland, as in many other European Union countries, traditional drainage systems that
operate in a gravitational way are still the leading way of transporting rainwater [14] when draining
urbanized areas. This approach results rainwater discharge that is characterized by a high peak flow
value and a rapid rise of water in the receivers.
Widely exploited traditional drainage systems, which have great retention capacity, have created
a wide field of application for the design variant presented in Variant III. Of course, if local conditions
allow it, it is optimal to adopt Variant IV, based on the use of modernized sustainable drainage systems
that are supported by LID devices. Variant IV allows for the use of existing engineering infrastructure to
control urban outflows and the storage of rainwater during extreme rainfall. This practice will provide
opportunities to solve a number of problems related to rainwater and the urban environment that are
currently being solved by traditional drainage systems. It can be safely stated that the implementation
of the concept of using sustainable drainage systems that are supported by low impact development
devices is a revolutionary approach in creating a spatial plan for urban development and storm water
management in cities, along with a rational desire to reduce the risk of urban floods. The validity
of this concept is confirmed by the fact that there is an increasing involvement in many countries in
introducing low impact development facilities to projects globally.
To sum up, commonly used traditional drainage systems with significant retention possibilities
have created a wide field for an application of solutions presented in Variant IV, which consist of
the simultaneous application of modernized sustainable drainage systems that are supported by
LID devices.

5. Conclusions
This article analyzes various variants of dealing with rainwater on the example of a housing estate
that is located in Poland. Rainwater management that is based on the simultaneous use of sustainable
drainage systems with specific water storage capacities and low impact development facilities should
be considered the most advantageous. The obtained set of hydraulic simulation results made it possible
to determine and then compare the effectiveness of all four adopted variants in terms of their impact
on the drainage system and rainwater receiver.
The analyses showed that the implementation of Variant IV, which uses system retention in the
drainage system and LID facilities, allowed for a reduction the peak flow and the volume of rainwater
that is discharged from the drained drainage basin. The results of the research revealed that in the
studied catchment area, the use of Variant IV reduced the peak discharge of rainwater by 86% compared
to Variant I. Variant IV had the highest hydraulic efficiency among the tested variants, regardless of
the duration of the storm td . In addition, the advantage of the drainage system with piling partitions
(Variant III) over the drainage system with LID facilities (Variant II) was demonstrated during a short
rainfall. Thus, the use of retention capacity of drainage systems through the implementation of, e.g.,
a retention sewage canal, can be an effective alternative to LID objects.
To sum up, Variant IV allows for the combination of the advantages of rainwater storage and
LID facilities while limiting their disadvantages. The application of the proposed Variant IV will
undoubtedly allow for the achievement of a high level of flood safety and the strengthening of the
Resources 2020, 9, 19 14 of 17

ecological and recreational values of cities while reducing the costs that are associated with the
investment and operation of the engineering facilities used.
The research results presented in this paper have practical applications and may be used
as guidelines for potential investors early as in the investment planning stage and, furthermore,
as a tool for promoting the application of the simultaneous use of retention sewage canal and
low impact development facilities. The study outlined above indicates the need to continue the
research work concerning the reliability of stormwater management practice. This work will be
oriented at the assessment of operating qualities of the proposed stormwater management practice in
real-life conditions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.S., J.D. and D.S.; methodology, M.S., J.D. and D.S.; investigation,
M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.S.; supervision, J.D. and D.S.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank the reviewers for their feedback, which has helped improve
the quality of the manuscript. We would also like to thank the Resources’ staff and Editors for handling the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Słyś, D.; Stec, A. Centralized or Decentralized Rainwater Harvesting Systems: A Case Study. Resources 2020,
9, 5. [CrossRef]
2. Hu, S.; Fan, Y.; Zhang, T. Assessing the Effect of Land Use Change on Surface Runoff in a Rapidly Urbanized
City: A Case Study of the Central Area of Beijing. Land 2020, 9, 17. [CrossRef]
3. Nations United. The World Population. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/
population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html (accessed on 13 January 2020).
4. Kordana, S. SWOT analysis of wastewater heat recovery systems application. E3S Web Conf. 2017, 17, 00042.
[CrossRef]
5. Sarabi, S.E.; Han, Q.; Romme, A.G.L.; de Vries, B.; Wendling, L. Key Enablers of and Barriers to the Uptake and
Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Settings: A Review. Resources 2019, 8, 121. [CrossRef]
6. Guneralp, B.; Lwasa, S.; Masundire, H.; Parnell, S.; Seto, K.C. Urbanization in Africa: Challenges and
opportunities for conservation. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 015002. [CrossRef]
7. Papciak, D.; Tchórzewska-Cieślak, B.; Domoń, A.; Wojtuś, A.; Żywiec, J.; Konkol, J. The Impact of the quality
of tap water and the properties of installation materials on the formation of biofilms. Water 2019, 11, 1903.
[CrossRef]
8. Tchórzewska-Cieślak, B.; Pietrucha-Urbanik, K.; Papciak, D. An Approach to Estimating Water Quality
Changes in Water Distribution Systems Using Fault Tree Analysis. Resources 2019, 8, 162. [CrossRef]
9. Kaykhosravi, A.; Abogadil, K.; Khan, U.; Jadidi, M. The Low-Impact Development demand index: A new
approach to identifying locations for LID. Water 2019, 11, 2341. [CrossRef]
10. Hornbuckle, J.W.; Christen, E.W.; Faulkner, R.D. Evaluating a multi-level subsurface drainage system for
improved drainage water quality. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 89, 208–216. [CrossRef]
11. Abbas, O.; Abou Rjeily, Y.; Sadek, M.; Shahrour, I. A large-scale experimentation of the smart sewage system.
Water Environ. J. 2017, 31, 515–521. [CrossRef]
12. Pochwat, K.; Kida, M.; Ziembowicz, S.; Koszelnik, P. Odours in Sewerage-A Description of Emissions and of
Technical Abatement Measures. Environments 2019, 6, 89. [CrossRef]
13. Rodriguez-Sinobas, L.; Zubelzu, S.; Perales-Momparler, S.; Canogar, S. Techniques and criteria for sustainable
urban stormwater management. The case study of Valdebebas (Madrid, Spain). J. Cleaner Prod. 2018, 172,
402–416. [CrossRef]
14. Dziopak, J. A wastewater retention canal as a sewage network and accumulation reservoir. E3S Web Conf.
2018, 45, 00016. [CrossRef]
15. Bruni, G.; Reinoso, R.; van de Giesen, N.C.; Clemens, F.H.L.R.; ten Veldhuis, J.A.E. On the sensitivity of
urban hydrodynamic modelling to rainfall spatial and temporal resolution. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19,
691–709. [CrossRef]
Resources 2020, 9, 19 15 of 17

16. da Silva, C.V.F.; Schardong, A.; Garcia, J.I.B.; Oliveira, C.D.M. Climate change impacts and flood control
measures for highly developed urban watersheds. Water 2018, 10, 829. [CrossRef]
17. Chan, F.K.S.; Griffiths, J.A.; Higgitt, D.; Xu, S.Y.; Zhu, F.F.; Tang, Y.T.; Xu, Y.Y.; Thorne, C.R. "Sponge City" in
China-A breakthrough of planning and flood risk management in the urban context. Land Use Policy 2018,
76, 772–778. [CrossRef]
18. Yue, H.; Li, L.; Yu, Y. Does urban cluster promote the increase of urban eco-efficiency? Evidence from Chinese
cities. J. Cleaner Prod. 2018, 197, 957–971. [CrossRef]
19. Zdeb, M.; Zamorska, J.; Papciak, D.; Słyś, D. The quality of rainwater collected from roofs and the possibility
of its economic use. Resources 2020, 9, 12. [CrossRef]
20. Talib, A.; Randhir, T.O. Climate change and land use impacts on hydrologic processes of watershed systems.
J. Water Clim. Change 2017, 8, 363–374. [CrossRef]
21. Zeleňáková, M.; Hluštík, P.; Abd-Elhamid, H.F.; Vranayová, Z.; Markovič, G.; Hudáková, G.; Tometz, L.
Comprehensive study of the percolation of water from surface runoff with an emphasis on the retention
capacity and intensity of precipitation. Water Sci. Technol. 2019, 79, 2407–2416. [CrossRef]
22. Pochwat, K. Hydraulic analysis of functioning of the drainage channel with increased retention capacity.
E3S Web Conf. 2017, 17, 00075. [CrossRef]
23. Todeschini, S.; Papiri, S.; Ciaponi, C. Placement Strategies and Cumulative Effects of Wet-weather Control
Practices for Intermunicipal Sewerage Systems. Water Resour. Manag. 2018, 32, 2885–2900. [CrossRef]
24. Sadeghi, K.M.; Loaiciga, H.A.; Kharaghani, S. Stormwater control measures for runoff and water quality
management in urban landscapes. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2018, 54, 124–133. [CrossRef]
25. Dietz, M.E.; Clausen, J.C. Stormwater runoff and export changes with development in a traditional and low
impact subdivision. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 87, 560–566. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Yang, X.H.; Ye, N.; Li, M.S. Comprehensive assessment of low impact development for urban stormwater
control measure - a case study of bioretention. Basic Clin. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2016, 119, 30–33.
27. Buurman, J.; Babovic, V. Adaptation Pathways and Real Options Analysis: An approach to deep uncertainty
in climate change adaptation policies. Policy Soc. 2016, 35, 137–150. [CrossRef]
28. Wang, M.; Zhang, D.Q.; Adhityan, A.; Ng, W.J.; Dong, J.W.; Tan, S.K. Assessing cost-effectiveness of
bioretention on stormwater in respons to climate change and urbanization for future scenarios. J. Hydrol.
2016, 543, 423–432. [CrossRef]
29. Morehouse, B.J.; Carter, R.H.; Tschakert, P. Sensitivity of urban water resources in Phoenix, Tucson, and Sierra
Vista, Arizona, to severe drought. Clim. Res. 2002, 21, 283–297. [CrossRef]
30. March, H.; Domenech, L.; Sauri, D. Water conservation campaigns and citizen perceptions: The drought of
2007-2008 in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. Nat. Hazards 2013, 65, 1951–1966. [CrossRef]
31. Seckler, D.; Barker, R.; Amarasinghe, U. Water scarcity in the twenty-first century. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev.
1999, 15, 29–42. [CrossRef]
32. Bokal, S.; Grobicki, A.; Kindler, J.; Thalmeinerova, D. From national to regional plans—The Integrated
Drought Management Programme of the Global Water Partnership for Central and Eastern Europe.
Weather Clim. Extremes 2014, 3, 37–46. [CrossRef]
33. Grillakis, M.G.; Koutroulis, A.G.; Tsanis, I.K. Improving Seasonal Forecasts for Basin Scale Hydrological
Applications. Water 2018, 10, 1593. [CrossRef]
34. Ghosh, R.; Kansal, A.; Venkatesh, G. Urban Water Security Assessment Using an Integrated Metabolism
Approach—Case Study of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in India. Resources 2019, 8, 62. [CrossRef]
35. Wartalska, K.; Kaźmierczak, B.; Nowakowska, M.; Kotowski, A. Analysis of hyetographs for sewer systems
modeling. Water 2020, 12, 149. [CrossRef]
36. Noblega, A.; Sauri, D.; March, H. Community Involvement in the Implementation of Sustainable Urban
Drainage Systems (SUDSs): The Case of Bon Pastor, Barcelona. Sustainability 2020, 12, 510. [CrossRef]
37. Starzec, M.; Dziopak, J.; Słyś, D. Designing a retention sewage canal with consideration of the dynamic
movement of precipitation over the selected urban catchment. In Underground Infrastructure of Urban Areas 4,
4th ed.; Madryas, C., Kolonko, A., Nienartowicz, B., Szot, A., Eds.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2017; Volume 1,
pp. 193–200. ISBN 9781138559530.
38. Stec, A.; Słyś, D. Effect of development of the town of Przemyśl on operation of its sewerage system.
Ecol. Chem. Eng. S 2013, 20, 381–396. [CrossRef]
Resources 2020, 9, 19 16 of 17

39. Ngamalieu-Nengoue, U.A.; Martínez-Solano, F.J.; Iglesias-Rey, P.L.; Mora-Meliá, D. Multi-objective

optimization for urban drainage or sewer networks rehabilitation through pipes substitution and storage
tanks installation. Water 2019, 11, 935. [CrossRef]
40. Mazzotta, M.J.; Besedin, E.; Speers, A.E. A Meta-Analysis of hedonic studies to assess the property value
effects of low impact development. Resources 2014, 3, 31–61. [CrossRef]
41. Mahmoodzadeh, M.; Mukhopadhyaya, P.; Valeo, C. Effects of extensive green roofs on energy performance
of school buildings in four north american climates. Water 2020, 12, 6. [CrossRef]
42. Kordana, S. The identification of key factors determining the sustainability of stormwater systems. E3S Web
Conf. 2018, 45, 00033. [CrossRef]
43. Cui, T.; Long, Y.; Wang, Y. Choosing the LID for urban storm management in the south of Taiyuan basin by
comparing the storm water reduction efficiency. Water 2019, 11, 2583. [CrossRef]
44. Dong, R.; Zhang, X.; Li, H. Constructing the ecological security pattern for Sponge City: A sase study in
Zhengzhou, China. Water 2019, 11, 284. [CrossRef]
45. Fletcher, T.D.; Shuster, W.; Hunt, W.F.; Ashley, R.; Butler, D.; Arthur, S.; Trowsdale, S.; Barraud, S.;
Semadeni-Davies, A.; Bertrand-Krajewski, J.L.; et al. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more—The evolution
and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water J. 2015, 12, 525–542. [CrossRef]
46. Ishaq, S.; Hewage, K.; Farooq, S.; Sadiq, R. State of provincial regulations and guidelines to promote low
impact development (LID) alternatives across Canada: Content analysis and comparative assessment.
J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 235, 389–402. [CrossRef]
47. Elliott, A.H.; Trowsdale, S.A. A Review of Models for Low Impact Urban Stormwater Drainage.
Environ. Model. Softw. 2007, 22, 394–405. [CrossRef]
48. Coffman, L.S.; Goo, R.; Frederick, R. Low-Impact Development An Innovative Alternative Approach to
Stormwater Management. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Water Resources Planning and Management
Conference, Tempe, AZ, USA, 6–9 June 1999; pp. 1–10.
49. Vogel, J.R.; Moore, T.L.; Coffman, R.R.; Rodie, S.N.; Hutchinson, S.L.; McDonough, K.R.; McLemore, A.J.;
McMaine, J.T. Critical Review of Technical Questions Facing Low Impact Development and Green
Infrastructure: A Perspective from the Great Plains. Water Environ. Res. 2015, 87, 849–862. [CrossRef]
50. Johns, C.; Shaheen, F.; Woodhouse, M. Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Management in Toronto: Policy
Context and Instruments, Centre for Urban Research and Land Development; Centre for Urban Research and Land
Development: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2018.
51. Moore, T.L.C.; Hunt, W.F. Ecosystem service provision by stormwater wetlands and ponds—A means for
evaluation? Water Res. 2012, 46, 6811–6823. [CrossRef]
52. Hassall, C.; Anderson, S. Stormwater ponds can contain comparable biodiversity to unmanaged wetlands in
urban areas. Hydrobiologia 2015, 745, 137–149. [CrossRef]
53. Taylor, J.R.; Lovell, S.T. Urban home food gardens in the Global North: Research traditions and future
directions. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 285–305. [CrossRef]
54. Hostetler, M.; Allen, W.; Meurk, C. Landscape and Urban Planning Conserving urban biodiversity? Creating
green infrastructure is only the first step. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100, 369–371. [CrossRef]
55. Pinho, P.; Correia, O.; Lecoq, M.; Munzi, S.; Vasconcelos, S.; Gonçalves, P.; Rebelo, R.; Antunes, C.; Silva, P.;
Freitas, C.; et al. Evaluating green infrastructure in urban environments using a multi-taxa and functional
diversity approach. Environ. Res. 2016, 147, 601–610. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Mao, X.; Jia, H.; Yu, S.L. Assessing the ecological benefits of aggregate LID-BMPs through modelling.
Ecol. Model. 2017, 353, 139–149. [CrossRef]
57. Schifman, L.A.; Prues, A.; Gilkey, K.; Shuster, W.D. Realizing the opportunities of black carbon in urban
soils: Implications for water quality management with green infrastructure. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644,
1027–1035. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Xie, N.; Akin, M.; Shi, X. Permeable concrete pavements: A review of environmental benefits and durability.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 1605–1621. [CrossRef]
59. Seo, M.; Jaber, F.; Srinivasan, R.; Jeong, J. Evaluating the Impact of Low Impact Development (LID) Practices
on Water Quantity and Quality under Different Development Designs Using SWAT. Water 2017, 9, 193.
[CrossRef]
Resources 2020, 9, 19 17 of 17

60. Capotorti, G.; Alós Ortí, M.M.; Copiz, R.; Fusaro, L.; Mollo, B.; Salvatori, E.; Zavattero, L. Biodiversity and
ecosystem services in urban green infrastructure planning: A case study from the metropolitan area of Rome
(Italy). Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 37, 87–96. [CrossRef]
61. Morakinyo, T.E.; Lam, Y.F.; Hao, S. Evaluating the role of green infrastructures on near-road pollutant
dispersion and removal: Modelling and measurement. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 182, 595–605. [CrossRef]
62. Nordbo, A.; Järvi, L.; Haapanala, S.; Wood, C.R.; Vesala, T. Fraction of natural area as main predictor of net
CO2 emissions from cities. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2012, 39. [CrossRef]
63. Chenoweth, J.; Anderson, A.R.; Kumar, P.; Hunt, W.F.; Chimbwandira, S.J.; Moore, T.L.C. The interrelationship
of green infrastructure and natural capital. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 137–144. [CrossRef]
64. Rafael, S.; Vicente, B.; Rodrigues, V.; Miranda, A.I.; Borrego, C.; Lopes, M. Impacts of green infrastructures
on aerodynamic flow and air quality in Porto’s urban area. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 190, 317–330. [CrossRef]
65. Jayasooriya, V.M.; Ng, A.W.M.; Muthukumaran, S.; Perera, B.J.C. Green infrastructure practices for
improvement of urban air quality. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 34–47. [CrossRef]
66. Wang, Y.; Sun, M.; Song, B. Public perceptions of and willingness to pay for sponge city initiatives in China.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 11–20. [CrossRef]
67. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. The Constructionguideline of Sponge City in China—Low
Impact Development of Stormwater System(trail); Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development:
Beijing, China, 2014.
68. Benzerra, A.; Cherrared, M.; Chocat, B.; Cherqui, F.; Zekiouk, T. Decision support for sustainable urban
drainage system management: A case study of Jijel, Algieria. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 101, 46–53. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
69. Bogdanowicz, E.; Stachy, J. Maximum Rainfall in Poland. Design Characteristics, 1st ed.; The Publishing House
of the Institute of Meteorology and Water Management: Warsaw, Poland, 1998; p. 83.
70. Rossman, L.A. Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual Version 5.1. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/water-research/storm-water-management-model-
swmm (accessed on 13 January 2020).
71. Słyś, D. An innovative retention canal—A case study. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 45, 00084. [CrossRef]
72. Słyś, D.; Dziopak, J. Retention Sewage Canal; Patent Office of the Republic of Poland: Warsaw, Poland, 2014;
p. 217405.
73. Starzec, M. The impact of construction of piling partitions on the retention efficiency of a sewerage network.
E3S Web Conf. 2018, 45, 00087. [CrossRef]
74. Xia, J.; Zhang, Y.; Xiong, L.; He, S.; Wang, L.; Yu, Z. Opportunities and challenges of the Sponge City
construction related to urban water issues in China. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2017, 60, 652–658. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).